The U.S. State Department issued a press release on Friday, October 27, that revealed both the wording and placement of a “unique identifier” to be added to the passports of some, but not all, registrants. According to that press release, the language “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(1)” will be printed on the inside back cover of new passports issued to those convicted of a sex offense involving a minor and currently required to register as a sex offender in any jurisdiction.
“It appears that the State Department press release may be in violation of federal law which requires agencies to issue regulations before making decisions such as the language and placement of a unique identifier on a registrant’s passport,” stated Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Additional research is required before a determination can be made about whether and how to legally challenge the State Department’s press release.”
The issue of a “unique identifier” for passports was initiated in the International Megan’s Law (IML), passed by Congress and signed by the President in February 2016. The IML requires the Secretary of State to add a “unique identifier” to newly issued passports for some, but not all, registrants. In addition, the IML allows, but does not require, the Secretary of State to revoke existing passports that do not contain a “unique identifier”.
The IML was challenged in federal district court in California in February 2016. In that case, the judge denied the request of seven plaintiffs to issue a Preliminary Injunction which could have stopped implementation of the IML. The seven plaintiffs included husbands of women who live in countries where they were denied entry, businessmen and the son of a man who lives in Iraq and would be killed if identified in that country as a registrant. The judge later granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case.
The Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., requires agencies to issue regulations prior to implementing a new law. Normally, this process requires the issuance of proposed regulations followed by a public comment period and then issuance of a final regulation. Under extraordinary circumstances, an agency is allowed to issue a final regulation without first issuing a proposed rule and considering public comments. The State Department claimed extraordinary circumstances and issued a final regulation on September 2, 2016. The agency’s regulation, however, did not address the issue of a “unique identifier” for passports but instead focused upon the notification provisions of the IML. After the State Department issued its IML regulation, ACSOL submitted a formal petition to that regulation on September 8, 2016.
“The ACSOL board of directors will conduct a meeting on November 4 to discuss this important matter,” stated Bellucci. “The board will announce the results of its meeting no later than November 6.”
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/news/passports-international-megans-law.html
They will clearly scan your passport. I do doubt that they will scan the passport for travel within US/I travel a great deal and I think it’s going to become very chaotic with the law requiring 2 forms of ID (elderly/children/infants etc).
Well
I think this is great news! I think this new law will show the distinction between pedophiles and non pedophiles! Thereo is a clear distinction. This will allow the normal offenders an opportunity to get on with their lives while those with child related issues (the primary reason the registry was created) to be better monitored!
it’s now ripe for challenge, so is the tiered registry bill…
Thank you State Department for backing me up as to why I use this as my name on this site…
I am not finding any news organization reporting on this…telling?
Civil disobedience in a large way, this is probably the only thing left that will stop this madness. RCs will NEVER be free even when many have completed their sentences or Punishment, lived a good and law abiding life and did exactly what we were told to do since our crime. most have nothing to lose, it has mostly been taken by our government. We have paid our debt 100s of times over and yet the madness never stops. Someone has to be held accountable besides us and our families.
Wow reality check, you should do as your screen name suggests, your comment is complete uninformed ignorance. I guess it takes all kinds…
Nevertheless of the effects of the IML, we must continue to fight this, and disprove of the things it has done, and hold these maniac politicians accountable. We should think positive of what we can do, be strong , motivated and not be too negative and self defeating ourselves, because someday this will all change. Edmund Burke said “the only thing necessary for triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing “.
This revelation definitely has helped give me guidance in terms of finally proceeding with my case in Mexico.
I guess this kills my plans to study abroad…
For those of you wondering whether obtaining a 1203.4 expungement would still be treated as a “conviction” under the Federal Guidelines and SORNA- the answer is no, it is not.
Bottom of page 9 in footnote, citation 14 here: https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/sorna/california-hny.pdf
[Offenders receiving such a withdrawal of a guilty plea or set aside of their guilty verdict will no longer meet the definition of “convicted” under SORNA and, as such, are no longer required by SORNA to register]
SORNA is the basis for the IML.
There are thousands upon thousands of people convicted of dui’s with the possibility of them getting drunk and killing someone abroad yet registered citizens are the only ones who’s possibility to commit a crime is treated as though it will surely happen. Debunking frightening and high is the only way this will change.
I have been observing the reaction to this resent IML action. Janice and her legal team have has done terminus work on the behalf of RCs and families and I do not want this to go un-notice, with that being said, there may be too much trimming at the ugly tree. The effort, that I will support, is to go to the roots and dig them out and to deal the owner of that tree. The roots of the tree, is the registry and owner of the tree is the governments. It is important to hold the Government responsible for their known lying actives, against us. Let us use legal actions is to indict the US Government and all State government for using lies to enact laws to hinder the freedom certain group of people. These legal actions need to include monetary reward for effected peoples. No more trimming of the Halloween, residency, school access, tier and etc. limbs, lets kill the registry and arrest the government for illegal activities.
Here’s an idea for Janice and the Board. Why not reach out to the attorneys who have been so successful lately and form a coalition to fight IML/Angel Watch? Michigan (Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan in Does v. Snyder), Colorado (DAVID MILLARD, EUGENE KNIGHT, ARTURO VEGA,), and Pennsylvania (Muniz).
I think we need to round up powerhouse legal resources, maybe filing in other more congenial jurisdictions. This crisis has national ramifications and needs a massive response. I am sure ample funding could be raised from the thousands of people whose travel needs will be affected adversely. I have donated every time Janice has said she was going to fight the IML, but it seems nothing has happened, while everyone fixated on tiers and trick or treat.
Has anyone on here tried to move abroad or study abroad while being a RC? I know it requires a passport and a visa from the receiving country. I know some countries don’t care about our status, but does that change when applying for a visa? Any info would be really helpful as I am able to travel more freely (hopefully) soon.
Thanks.
the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
How is this not challenged as arbitrary, when the durations on the registry are completely arbitrary and not based on any research and vary from state to state, yet these marks are keyed to that arbitrary duration?
How is this not challenged as arbitrary when there is no correlation between any offences other than convictions for travelling to a foreign country to have sex with a minor and their need to mark the passports for any offence involving a child?
How is this not challenged as an equal protections issue when a person in one state under the same exact circumstances is marked while someone in another state is not simply because they aren’t required to register in that state?
Not true about no ACLU. Miriam Aukerman of the Michigan ACLU has spearheaded perhaps the most significant SORNA defeat to date. I heard her at a meeting sponsored by Illinois Voices in Chicago and she is brilliant, dedicated and tireless. I recall someone on this board has been in regular contact with her about Doe v Snyder. Perhaps that person can contact her about the IML/Angel Watch disaster.
Also, on NASROL a lawyer named Tim of the Michigan ACLU is following the Snyder developments and invites us to ask for help. This would be a good time:
“I am Tim and I am working with the ACLU on this case and Legislative changes that we will be pushing for based on the court’s ruling. We are fortunate that some Elected officials are willing to make some positive changes but were waiting for what I call cover from a court ruling so they would not look like they were “Easy on Crime” I always tell them no you should Be Smart on Crime when you write laws. Look at the real facts and studies not just what you think they are. Anyway this process will not happen overnight but we are now headed in the right direction.Please be patient with this process. Our Legal Team on this case is now reviewing what the next best steps are and we are currently looking at other issues with SOR and how and if we can accomplish wins with some of them also. However we will have a priority that if the Legislators do not act in a way that we feel the court ruled we will be back in court for court orders to make them do so. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT ANYONE CURRENTLY ON THE SOR FOLLOWS THE LAWS AS THEY ARE NOW WRITTEN, we also would like people to be patient and NOT file cases based on this as that will just slow things down or could result in bad lower court rulings that could hurt or destroy your chances for removal from the SOR. Our Legal and Legislative Teams are working hard and we would ask that if you are a Michigan Resident and you have questions or concerns please contact me (Tim P) at intern@aclumich.org and I will attempt to answer them. I am always looking for people who will be willing to testify so if you are please contact me at the email above, I will respond as quickly as possible but we are being overloaded at this time.”
Good Luck to all and better days are coming for all if we keep pushing back on these SOR punitive laws.
Tim P: ACLU of Michigan SOR Specialist and NARSOL Michigan Contact
intern@aclumich.org
When will this identifier start being put on the passports. And, can RSOs still apply for a passport card at this time?
Personally, I believe this is the critical moment for the ACLU to get off their asses and make a loud public outcry about the ongoing punishment of registered citizens!! This “unique identifier” on passports provides a key opportunity for them to finally speak out loudly, clearly and publicly in order to abolish the registry and its many add-on punishments.
I believe we should all bombard our local and National ACLU offices with letters DEMANDING they take action – letters that include copies of the State Department’s press release! It is beyond belief that they defend the rights of neo-Nazis to march and middle school students to wear t-shirts saying “F#ck Trump”, but do little to nothing to assist our efforts!! 😡
This is good. Already positive attention from Reason magazine, my favorite voice of reason. Hopefully this will be picked up by more mainstream media. I think that might prod ACLU to consider helping.
Scarlet-Letter Passports Are Unjust and Irrational
The new “unique identifier” for sex offenders stigmatizes people who pose no threat.
The notice, which will appear on the second-to-last page of U.S. passports, is officially known as an “endorsement,” but it is more like a badge of shame.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/11/01/scarlet-letter-passports-are-unjust-and
Note: it does say that the words will be placed on the last endorsement page, not the back cover as some have suggested.
I had a thought that maybe the State Dept is deep down reluctant to do this (it took so long, past their legal deadline, they sent our a press release which will stir up bad publicity). It’s almost like they are dragging their feet in complying with Congress. Maybe they would be open to negotiation in some way.
Here’s an idea (how’d he get away with that):
“Onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort keeps three U.S. passports with different identification numbers and submitted 10 passport applications in as many years, the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller disclosed in a new court filing Tuesday arguing that Manafort poses a significant flight risk.”
From the Washington Post:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-manafort-russia-probe-20171031-story.html
Covered — Not exactly what you describe on the passports. My wife and I just received new passports (good til 2026 unless they revoke mine). At the bottom on the “identity” page at the beginning (with your name, photo, etc.), there is a “machine-readable zone” consisting of two rows of 44 characters each. This contains exactly the same information as is written above, but so the agent doesn’t have to read it in print, it’s read by the scanner and displayed on a screen. If you look at “Machine-readable passport” on Wikipedia, you will find a very detailed explanation.
At the bottom of the inside back cover there is a number which is the same as your passport number plus some bar codes. Can’t find a translation of bar codes (computer geek help), but I’m guessing that they are the same info as at the bottom of the front page.
The really, really, good news is that the page opposite the inside back cover (28 in mine) is boiler-plate text. The last Endorsements pages are the two pages BEFORE that (26-27), so if the agent scans either the first page (2) or the last, anything printed on the last endorsement page will not be immediately obvious.
Here’s a photo I found showing typical last two pages:
https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-last-page-of-the-US-passport-look-like
If State Department had wanted to be really mean (and I don’t think they actually do), they could have included the “warning” in the RFID strip so it would be displayed on the agent’s screen, but apparently (based on their press release), they are not doing this.
Comparing sex offenders to Jews is a false argument that often comes up, but I don’t think we’re going to get any mileage from it. The “branding” may be similar, but we have committed a crime (horrific in most people’s eyes), and we are being punished (no doubt unfairly) — while Jews are Jews simply by birth. They haven’t done anything to earn their being ostracized (or ultimately murdered).
Hitler was against “Jewishness” or what some might call today the “liberal elite”, socialist, intellectuals, libertarians, what have you. These of “impure blood” were blamed for the bad economy, moral decay, being soft on crime, sexual freedom, social diversity, porous borders, relativism. In Dachau concentration camp several groups were labled, immigrants, sexual deviants, gypsies, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses and anyone that did not fit neatly into the mythology of the perfect Aryan as defined by the leader. You ought to be pleased to know the distinction between groups was very important to the leaders, apparently, why else would they go through the trouble of tagging each one to its group, keeping detailed records and registries, and given various degrees of more or less horrendous treatment based on group affiliation, none of it which was humane, rational or geared directly to a person’s real threat to society, except maybe by accident. There are after all very few bad ones in all the groups of any size, so one can say those few got their just deserts at the expense of the rest. That was the 1930’s in Germany. It was a campaign against tolerance. Now is now. Some of it is starting to look the same. Get the significance in the reference now? They locked up political prisoners and those convicted of sex crimes first. We are talking about that extreme shotgun approach against a hated group, not Jews or sex offenders.
Lets call this what it really is, a very sneaky way to prevent travel…punishment I hope some court somewhere sees it that way.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/state-department-to-identify-child-sex-offenders-on-passports